The main legal point established in the judgment is that a court may dismiss a petition on the preliminary point of jurisdiction and that a mere declaration without a consequential relief cannot be granted through a writ petition.

( 1 ) HEARD shri R. N. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri A. K. Singh for the Union of India and Shri Tarun Verma, Counsel for the Unit trust of India.

( 2 ) THE petitioner has prayed for an appropriate writ, order or direction declaring the provisions of Rule 6 (1) of the Debts Recovery tribunal (Procedure) Amendment Rules, 2003 as being ultra vires Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993. The petitioner has also prayed for an appropriate writ, order or direction declaring proceedings filed by the respondent No. 2, Unit Trust of India, Mumbai as without jurisdiction.

( 3 ) THE petitioner is a Company registered under the Indian Companies Act. The respondent, Unit Trust of India filed an application before Debt Recovery Tribunal, Mumbai under Section 19 of the aforesaid Act, claiming a sum of Rs. 15,56,15,241. 00/- as principal amount and payable with interest in the alleged capacity of debenture holders and debenture trustee. True copy of the application under Section 19 filed before the Debt Recovery tribunal, Mumbai dated 7th July 2000 has been filed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition.

( 4 ) IN our opinion, this petition is liable to be dismissed on the preliminary point that this court has. no jurisdiction in the matter at all and it is the Bombay High Court which has jurisdiction. The proceedings are pending before Debt Recovery Tribunal, Mumbai and the petitioner really wants a writ of prohibition against those proceedings, although that prayer has not been specifically mentioned in the prayer in the writ petition. The difference between a writ of certiorari and a writ of prohibition is that a writ of certiorari is filed after the impugned order is passed, whereas a writ of prohibition is filed before an order is passed. Thus, a writ of prohibition is filed when a proceeding before an inferior Court or Tribunal is pending, and it is alleged that they are without jurisdiction. Thus, the relief really claimed by the petitioner in this writ petition is the relief of prohibition to prohibit the Debt Recovery tribunal, Mumbai from proceeding with the case before it. In our opinion, such a writ petition should be filed before bombay High Court, which, in our opinion, alone has the jurisdic-tion to grant such relief. Learned counsel for the petitioner then submitted that we may ignore the prayer for writ of prohibition and we should consider the petitioners prayer for declaring Rule 6 (1) of the Debts recovery Tribunal (Procedure) Amendment Rules, 2003 as being ultra vires Section 19 of the Act, 1993. In our opinion, this would really be a prayer for a declaration only, and it is well settled that a writ petition does not lie only for giving a declaration. In Charanjeet Lal v. Union of india, while considering the scope of a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of india, the Supreme Court observed :-"a proceeding under this Article cannot really have any affinity to what is known as a declaratory suit. The first prayer made in the petition seeks relief in the shape of a declaration that the act is invalid and is apparently inappropriate to an application under Article 32. "in Makkhan Singh v. State of Punjab and Haryana (vide para 45), it was held that a mere declaration is outside the purview of proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution. A full Bench of this Court in Maqbool unissa and Ors. v. Union of India, has held that the powers of issuing writs, orders or directions under Article 226 of the Constitution should not be utilized for giving what is in essence a declaratory relief. Similar view has been taken in two other Full Bench decisions of this court in Sri D. G. Vidyalaya Association v. State of U. P. and Sheo Kumar v. State of u. P. 5. Similar view has been taken by a Division Bench decision of this-Court in Green field Corporation Limited and Anr. v. U. P. Financial Corporation.

( 5 ) THE prayer that Rule 6 be d